On February 11, 2021, Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) Special Agent (SA) Tamara Taubel began an investigation into a CyberTip provided by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). The CyberTip indicated that a Kik messaging application user, “dommasterbb,” uploaded images and videos consistent with child pornography through the application on 27 separate occasions in October and November of 2020. Those files were sent to other Kik users through private chat messages or shared in a messaging group. The email used for registering the Kik account “dommasterbb” was identified in the CyberTip as “email@example.com.”
Note the name "dommasterbb," which indicates this is a purely sexual account.
According to Wisconsin law, these shared images met the definition of "child pornography," a rather nebulous distinction, because the "child" is defined as being under 18 in that jurisdiction. Pedophilia involves a prepubescent child, not a teenager who is under whatever the age of consent is. Obviously, either one would be breaking the law, but you'd be hard pressed to tell a 17-year-old apart from an 18-year-old, and a "child" a few years younger than 18 has more agency than a prepubescent child (not to mention, 16 is the legal age of consent in a majority of states, as well as most other countries). This is always a necessary distinction. Pedophilia should not be trivialized with what is obviously a lesser (or should be) offense.
However, as would be expected of a deviant homosexual, what he was downloading and sharing was undeniably child pornography:
...he downloaded videos of adult men having anal and oral sex with Asian and Caucasian toddlers and other male children, including a crying boy in a Mickey Mouse shirt.
This is a very tame description compared to what can be found on the complaint document (pages 7-9). I wouldn't recommend reading the more detailed descriptions.
Homosexual Adoption Is the Much Greater offense, yet We've Normalized It
Far more troubling is the fact that Blomme is married to another man, with whom he has adopted two very young children, one male, the other female. One would think Blomme would be disallowed from being around "his children," but he is out of jail on a $500 signature bond and has been ordered to have “no unsupervised contact with any minors except his own children.”
These are not really his children—not biologically, only legally. The amount of abuse associated with child adoption is already very high. There is no evidence that either of the children were featured in the shared child pornography, but that doesn't mean they have not been abused, sexually or otherwise, by these two homosexuals. They are certainly at the mercy of these men.
If the birth parents aren't able to take care of their children or have died, children should always preferably be passed on to someone who is biologically related to them—this is the only thing that makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. It's sad if they aren't able to grow up with parents or close relatives, but a state-run foster care model is probably best suited for the child who has no other biological relatives eligible to become their guardian. At least this way, there can be the potential for multiple employees and similar-aged peers who can support the child and provide a broader accountability to reduce child abuse. Abuse happens in foster care, but it will be even more difficult to detect with an adoptive couple.
Adoption is less than ideal even with straight-laced heterosexual adoptive parents. It's a bizarre scenario for both sides as they unnaturally play these roles. No matter how caring these parents may be, they won't treat the children the same as their own flesh and blood, and the same goes for the adopted child. Not only is abuse more common from the adoptive parents because of the lack of biological relation, but it goes both ways—it's not unheard of for the children to grow up and exploit their parents, or even to be violent or psychopathic, since the adoptive parents know very little about the origin of the child.
The problem of adoption is exacerbated further when we factor in homosexuals.
The rate of child abuse and sexual deviancy is much higher in the homosexual population compared to the heterosexual population.
I realize not all homosexuals will be abusive in the predatory sense of molesting their children, but even if we take a well-meaning homosexual couple (to the extent that is possible), both of whom are acting upon their paternal and/or maternal instincts and wish to give the child a good life, does this not cause harm in its own way? It is normal to be raised by a mother and a father. Having both fulfills a necessary feminine and masculine balance of parenting styles and provides a proper model of behavior. Having two fathers or two mothers can never be the same, and as we have evolved with these separate roles of father and mother, we should not expect favorable outcomes when we go against the grain. They will be reared with behaviors unique to a small subset of the population, and we can expect a male to become more feminine and a female to become more masculine in their behavior under the stewardship of the homosexual.
The children will undoubtedly be exposed to more troubling stimuli under the homosexual's tutelage. The homosexual couples are unlikely to last, and many new partners will fill the role of "parent." They will instill homosexual and liberal neuroticism in the child that will engender greater unhappiness, and they will be more likely to promote excesses of this decadent culture, such as transgenderism.
They will not become accustomed to the values of a heterosexual couple, that which is not only the norm, but is also more desirable and necessary for a functioning society. Being raised in a milieu of homosexuality will instead select for dysfunction. What is a child to do, should his primary role model be a sexual deviant who has non-reproductive sex with the same sex. It is obviously the acting out of mental illness or a brain abnormality, for one to be a homosexual. To subject a child to these circumstances is a form of child abuse.
Yes, homosexual behavior occurs in nature, amongst non-human animals, but this behavior is anomalous and serves no function. It is an error on the part of the animal.
Both homosexuality and feminism serve no purpose other than to disrupt and subvert society and make it worse in the longterm, meanwhile, in the short term, people think they are freer and happier because of these choices, but they are not. The absorption in this pleasure is nothing more than a dopamine hit that won't last—a rush of wasted chemicals. Once the feeling wanes, there is only despair and alienation to reflect upon, before the cruel cycle of finding the next dopamine hit is pursued. To cave into these impulses leads to the diminution of man, and he becomes hobbled by these destructive impulses, failing to meet his true potential as not only an individual, but as part of the collective we have lost.
When we're not fearfully succumbing to political correctness, does anyone really believe homosexual parenting is good for children, who, as a default, are heterosexual? Liberals will push their biased studies—with tiny sample sizes—that are promoted by gay lobbyists. Science, like anything else nowadays, must follow the money. Everything is political.
There does appear to be a genetic influence that corresponds with homosexual behavior, but should this be treated as natural and acceptable, or should we try and correct it? I believe the latter should at least be attempted. Treat homosexuality as a mental illness and disparage these impulses, so that these children might be rescued from their wayward path of analism, hedonism, disease, and despair. It's an inevitability that some will go down this path; there's always a small homosexual subset within society, whether it is overt or covert. They at least deserve a chance, however.
What is really the greater crime, sharing and distributing child pornography, or allowing two homosexual men to adopt children? Homosexuals are far more sexually deviant and engage in various paraphilias compared to the general population (I'd argue that homosexuality is a paraphilia to begin with and should be considered a mental illness, just as it was listed in the APA during the early 1970s).
The downloading and distribution of pornography is bad to begin with, and even worse when it involves prepubescent children—but there is a lot of content that is recirculated and may not lead to extra abuse per se, but enabling homosexuals to adopt children is an immediate vector for abuse and worse outcomes for the children. Homosexuals, as has been previously stated, also sexually abuse children at higher rates than the general population. Every child adopted by homosexuals should be considered endangered, and those who promote and allow them to be adopted by homosexuals are culpable for endangering them.
Back to Blomme and Some of His Other Endeavors
Blomme was a democrat, and a record of his connections and political involvement can be found here.
Tom Barrett, the mayor of Milwaukee, wrote favorably of Blomme, stating that he attended "Marquette University where he became active in grassroots organizing in the LGBTQ+ community. He has dedicated his career as a community leader and attorney serving underprivileged and often overlooked populations."
|Kiwi Farms and LinkedIn|
Homosexuals are very, very sexual beings, who are obsessed with sexual pleasure and their sexual identity. They have far more partners and remain monogamous at much lower rates than heterosexuals. They engage in far more perverse and risk-prone sexual behavior and drug use. Their entire life is focused on sexual gratification and increasing the power and status of homosexuals in general.
Ungodly amounts of money is funneled into treatment for HIV/AIDS, a disease that rarely affects anyone other than homosexuals who engage in regular anal sex without condoms, which could instead be used to mitigate various other illnesses.